I agree with you; he probably would be ripped to shreds. However, the difference lies in the way it'd go down. The title of the OP and most of the insults are all gender specific. A thread about a dude making a tasteless and embarrassing sex joke wouldn't made fun of for objectifying himself, there would be no mention of either mommy issues or any suggestion that his mommy would be ashamed of him, and there wouldn't be any comments from people suggesting that he's automatically not boyfriend material. He'd probably just be made fun of for being douchey.

I dunno, man. I don't think this joke is funny either, but do we have to always bring women's daddy's when they're being overtly sexual? It skeeves me out.

First, it's clearly not a tattoo. It's written on her finger with a sharpie.

Second, we agree: it's a stupid tasteless gag. I'd cringe hard if one of my friends posted a photo like that in public. I'm not debating the cringy-ness of the photo, I'm stating that the comments and insults are gendered. If it were a guy in that photo, the comments would be different.

Third, I'm not wrong. Your comment is different than the comments I referenced. You said ancestors which implies parents (not one or the other), but also grandparents and great grandparents. The shame you believe your hypothetical male friend's family would express isn't based on the gender of their family members. That's fine. I don't think it's strange for families to be embarrassed by their children's questionable behaviour. I do think the focus on fathers being ashamed by their daughters' sexual activity is strange- especially since there's very little talk or reference to fathers feeling shame over their sons' sexual activity or mothers ashamed of either their sons' or their daughters' sexual activity.

I mean that "ancestors" is not gender specific and "father" is. So if everyone was commenting about and the title referred to how this woman's ancestors (or parents) should be ashamed of her, that's not gendered and I don't think it's strange or wrong. Basically what I'm saying is that I don't think that the hypothetical reaction you gave above about your male friend was wrong or weird or sexist in any way based on the fact that if you switch the gender of the subject, the result is pretty much the same: the subject has shameful ancestors.

I think that the focus on the father as the ashamed parent of a sexual daughter is weird. Partly because when you flip the genders around there's no other stereotype. I mean, ya, if this were a dude and his mom saw the pic, chances are she'd be ashamed. My point is that no one ever (or VERY rarely) makes that comment. However, I see comments all the time (on reddit and fb) about how overtly sexual women's fathers would be ashamed or that if they are overtly sexual, they must have a bad relationship with their father. To me, it suggests that their father has some sort of control over or stake in his daughter's sexual activity. That's the ick factor for me.

Let's go back to an actual male cringe picture I remember. Here. In this picture the guy says something overly sexual. Had this been posted on /r/cringepics right now, the comments would likely assume he is not boyfriend material, and a few other "gendered" insults would come with it. People would assume he is creepy, the same way they assume the girl depicted above is "easy" or "loose"

The point is cringe is cringe is cringe. Not everything has to be a social justice issue.

You're right- I guess the datebility comments seem strange because they're gendered insults and more because they're misplaced. Comments about the dateablity of the guy in the link would make sense: it's a profile pic/info from an online dating site- the guy posted that with the intention of trying to be dateable/attractive. While the OP might be taken from a dating site too there's nothing in the context to suggest that it has been. Therefore, comments about whether or not she's girlfriend material are irrelevant.

If I saw gendered slurs about in the comments of the post about that guy, I wouldn't be cool with that either.

It's one thing to enjoy sexuality and embrace life's pleasures, but a vulgar display of crude humor is just distasteful as all hell. Sure it's fun to joke about that stuff with friends, but to record those moments for others to see is just really unapealling. It's about self respect and desency. You can enjoy sex and sexual acts without being so ungraceful about it.

Distasteful to some, but not to all. There are plenty of people who find humour in these kinds of things and who don't think there's anything wrong with recording these moments.

The OP's title of "Daddy must be proud" is probably a reference to how so many idiots think that every girl/woman who shows interest in sex is said to have "Daddy issues." The comment I responded to which said "you say empowered, I say self-objectification" is another sexist thing commonly said by idiots. The person in the picture most likely wasn't trying to say she was "empowered", she was just fooling around. The "self-objectification" comment was completely unnecessary and was only said because the person pictured is female. If it had been a man, there wouldn't be any comment about "self-objectification". Most likely he'd just be called a douche.

There's nothing wrong with fooling around and making sexual jokes. It's not wrong to take pictures of those moments. It is wrong to shame someone just because they're a female and are joking about sex. People aren't talking about her being a douche or trashy, they're talking about how she's making herself into a sexual object just because she's female.

If a dude wrote "mustache rides" on his finger and had an arrow pointing to his facial hair and mouth, I'm pretty sure the same type of thread would be made. That guy would be a douchebag. Same if a gay guy did the same thing she did. That is unattractive across the board.

You see appeal in a woman who puts a sign for all dudes to see implying everyone cum in her mouth? That's great if she enjoys it but I would instantly not consider her relationship material because she definitely needs some sort of attention even if it is a joke. You don't take that picture without seeking some sort of attention.

You're right. I see your point and agree, she shouldn't be judged for pictures and jokes like these just because she's a girl. I just think it's unapealling regardless of gender. Man, woman, or other, sex jokes are funny in the moment, verbal, amongst friends, but the whole written out and use of vulgar words for the whole the world just really puts me off. But you're right, that's not everyone's opinion, just mine. I also find pictures of people flipping the bird very distasteful and off putting, but lord knows I've used it more then once in the heat of anger.

That's definitely not a real tattoo. Finger tattoos, especially on the inside, don't heal that well. And besides, no one that is a legit professional tattoo artist would let someone that young ruin their lives like that

Disagree. There's no indication of any rubber stamp tool use or any other method of covering up the alleged finger moustache, the lighting and contrast of the lettering matches too well, and the font is neither consistent with a premade font or lettering drawn digitally.
Source: been using Photoshop since 1992 to create digital art, photo manipulations, and marginally funny pictures for use on message boards.